Injury Biomechanics Research Center, the Ohio State University. 2063 Graves Hall, 333 W 10(th) Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Volvo Cars Safety Centre, 405 31 Göteborg, Sweden.
Accid Anal Prev. 2023 Nov;192:107280. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2023.107280. Epub 2023 Sep 10.
Pediatric anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) are important tools for the assessment of child occupant protection and should represent realistic child belt fit and posture on belt-positioning boosters. Previous comparisons have been made to children in either self-selected or nominal postural conditions. This study compares belt fit and postural measurements between pediatric ATDs and a single cohort of children assuming different postures on boosters: self-selected, holding a portable electronic device, and nominal.
A cohort of children (n = 25) were evaluated in a stationary vehicle on five boosters and in three postural conditions: nominal, self-selected, and a representative holding electronic device position. The Hybrid III 6- and 10-year-old and Q-Series 6- and 10-year-old ATDs were evaluated in the same five boosters and in two postural conditions: nominal and a representative holding electronic device position. A 3D coordinate measurement device was used to quantify belt fit (shoulder belt score, lap belt score, maximum gap size, and gap length) and anatomic landmark positions (head, suprasternale, ASIS, and patella). Landmark positions and belt fit were compared between ATDs and children for each booster and postural condition, and Pearson correlations (r) were assessed across boosters.
ATDs generally represented Nominal child postures across boosters. In the Device condition, ATDs were seldom able to be positioned to represent both the torso and head position of children, due to limited ATD spinal flexibility. When the torso position was matched, the ATD head was more rear by 63 mm. Correlations between Nominal child and ATD belt fit and belt gap metrics were generally weak and not significant, with the exception of lap belt score (all ATDs p < 0.07, r = 0.8549-0.9857).
ATDs were generally able to represent realistic child postures and lap belt fit in Nominal and short duration Self-selected postures in a laboratory setting. However, these results display the potential difficulty of utilizing ATDs to represent more naturalistic child postures, especially the more forward head positions and flexed spinal posture associated with utilizing a portable electronic device.
儿科人体模型测试设备（ATD）是评估儿童乘员保护的重要工具，应能代表安全带定位助推器上实际的儿童安全带贴合和姿势。以前的比较都是针对自我选择或名义姿势条件下的儿童。本研究比较了儿科 ATD 与单个儿童群体在以下三种姿势条件下的安全带贴合和姿势测量结果：自我选择、手持便携式电子设备以及名义姿势。
在静止车辆上，对 25 名儿童在五个安全带定位助推器上，以及在三种姿势条件下进行评估：名义姿势、自我选择和代表性手持电子设备位置。Hybrid III 6 岁和 10 岁儿童以及 Q-Series 6 岁和 10 岁儿童 ATD 在相同的五个安全带定位助推器和两种姿势条件下进行评估：名义姿势和代表性手持电子设备位置。使用三维坐标测量设备来量化安全带贴合（肩带评分、腹带评分、最大间隙尺寸和间隙长度）和解剖学标志位置（头部、胸骨上切迹、ASIS 和髌骨）。在每个安全带定位助推器和姿势条件下，比较 ATD 和儿童的标志位置和安全带贴合，评估跨助推器的 Pearson 相关系数（r）。
ATD 通常能够代表各助推器上的名义儿童姿势。在设备条件下，由于 ATD 脊柱灵活性有限，很少能够定位到同时代表儿童的躯干和头部位置。当躯干位置匹配时，ATD 头部向后移动 63 毫米。名义儿童和 ATD 安全带贴合和安全带间隙测量值的相关性通常较弱且不显著，除了腹带评分（所有 ATD 的 p<0.07，r=0.8549-0.9857）。
在实验室环境中，ATD 通常能够代表现实的儿童姿势和名义姿势以及短时间的自我选择姿势中的腹带贴合。然而，这些结果显示了利用 ATD 代表更自然的儿童姿势的潜在困难，尤其是与使用便携式电子设备相关的更向前的头部位置和弯曲的脊柱姿势。
